By VERNON ROBISON
The Progress
A long-awaited plan to reopen the K-12 schools in Clark County was presented to the Clark County School District Board (CCSD) of Trustees at an online meeting held Thursday, June 25.
The document had been released to the public abruptly two days earlier causing a firestorm of parent questions and concerns regarding details of the plan. Much of the nearly three hours spent on the plan was taken with answering a long list of questions submitted to trustees by the general public.
In a statement made before the full presentation of the plan, CCSD Superintendent Jesus Jara reminded the public that the safety of school children and of CCSD staff was of utmost importance in drafting the plan.
“This unconventional plan isn’t an educational structure that is conducive to long-term positive outcomes,” Jara said. “But it is a plan that will ensure our students have an educational future.”
“Getting back to a place of normalcy may not be an easy process, but it is one that we have to work towards with thoughtfulness and patience,” Jara added. “My focus is on getting our children back on track with their educational goals, and I need the help of this entire community to get there.”
The Plan
The reopening plan would have students attending school for face-to-face instruction only two days per week. The other three weekdays would be spent doing online learning at home.
All grade levels would be divided into three cohorts. The first of these would attend live classes at school on Monday and Tuesday. The second would attend classes on Thursday and Friday.
The maximum capacity for most classrooms at any given time would be about 18 students.
A third cohort would be offered to students wishing to opt out of face-to-face class time altogether for distance learning full time.
This schedule would allow for enhanced cleaning at school facilities to take place on Wednesdays and Fridays.
In addition to the staggered daily schedule, the plan sets a delayed start date for the school year at Aug. 24. That will allow two weeks for teachers and support staff to receive special training beginning at their contractual start date on Aug. 10.
Elementary school kids would receive face-to-face instruction in Reading, Language Arts, Math and Social Studies/Science on their two days per week of live learning. They would receive distance instruction in these subjects on the other three days. Subjects like Art, Music, Library and Physical Education would be taught weekly via online platforms at home.
For middle school and high school students, year-long courses would be condensed to just one semester. Students would take only four courses per semester including English, Math and a combination of Social Studies, Science, Health, PE and other electives.
Additional time would be given to stagger passing periods to facilitate social distancing in hallways. Lunch would also be staggered and would take place at the end of the school day.
Upon arrival at school, students would be required to follow personal preventive measures including the wearing of a cloth face coverings throughout the day. Social distancing between students would also be required.
Questions from community
A period for answering questions from the public, which had been submitted by email, went on for more than an hour.
Questions arose first about how the plan would deal with special education programs.
CCSD Deputy Superintendent Brenda Larsen-Mitchell responded that the district would create daily schedules for each student to offer structure for students with Individual Education Plans (IEPs). Training for families would also be offered in implementing the blended learning model for special needs students.
Another question from the public asked if the late start of the school year would result in a late release date in the spring. Larsen-Mitchell said that the state normally allows for 5 staff development days in the annual academic schedule. The state had more recently allowed an additional five days of staff development to be added to the schedule. This would allow for the district to remain in compliance with state requirements while retaining an on-time release date in the spring.
Several questions were asked about details of the instructional schedule.
Larsen Mitchell clarified that teachers would be meeting face-to-face with half of their students on each day. Wednesday, when no live classes are held, teachers would have necessary prep time.
“This is why our Wednesdays are so extremely important,” Larsen-Mitchell said. “Because (teachers) will be responsible for the students who are face-to-face with them and also for providing enrichment opportunities for students as they are engaged in distance learning off campus. It is essential that we provide that time for our teachers to do all of this.”
Defying the state?
CCSD Trustee Chris Garvey said that she had heard from a huge number of constituents insisting that the district ignore the state mandates, just follow the overwhelming majority wishes of parents and students and return to school as usual.
“I guess what I’m asking is, do we have to do what they (the state) say,” Garvey said. “What are the consequences if we do what a lot of parents are saying?”
Jara responded that it is the State Superintendent of Instruction that must approve or deny the CCSD plan for reopening schools. The State Superintendent would be looking at how the district complies with the emergency declarations in place regarding social distancing and other safety guidelines.
“I would say that putting our kids back in school, as we are hearing from a lot of parents, is just not an option,” Jara said. “Right now, under Phase II, to go back to school as usual, we cannot meet social distance (requirements). We can’t even put our kids on a bus following the Phase II guidelines that we have right now.”
Rural school consideration
One of the questions from the public asked if the district was giving any consideration for rural schools where a lower student population might make physical distancing less of a problem.
Larsen-Mitchell responded that the requirements must remain in place requiring six feet of distancing and groups no larger than 50.
“Looking at the health and safety of our students and our staff, we will have to look at that on a case by case basis,” she said.
A local response
School administrators and education advocates from Moapa Valley pinned their hopes upon the possibility of that ‘case by case’ rural consideration mentioned by Larsen-Mitchell.
At a meeting of the Moapa Valley Community Education Advisory Board (MVCEAB) held Friday morning the discussion surrounded the plan and what options might be for local schools.
Grant Bowler Elementary Principal Shawna Jessen cautioned board members to not only focus on the negative aspects of the plan. She said that, while the changes surrounding COVID-19 may not be ideal, there might be opportunity for positive change embedded within them.
“Even though it is not great, there are some great parts of this plan,” Jessen said.
These included a full day of prep every week for teachers and a more focused approach only having to prepare for two classes per week. In addition, positive results could come from requiring even more involvement from parents, she said.
“It will require us to use instructional time more wisely,” Jessen added. “In general, the kids will be able to do more and learn more and be more, in less time. This could be a catalyst for innovative change for our valley. Can we dream a better dream? What would that be?”
At the meeting, some principals admitted, in looking closely at the details of the plan, that there was a possibility of some local schools being able to comply with the COVID-19 restrictions even while bringing all of their students back to school five days per week. This because of the smaller numbers in their student body.
Hal Mortensen, who serves as principal of both Moapa Valley High School and Ute Perkins Elementary School, said that there was no doubt that the small student at Perkins Elementary would allow for small enough class sizes to fit the 18 per classroom guideline.
Mortensen also believed that, given some shifting of schedules and room spaces, that a daily class schedule was even possible at MVHS as well.
Mack Lyon Middle School principal Ken Paul said that he had spoken with Assistant Principal Aimee Lewis who had looked closely at the plan and crunched the numbers.
“She thought that we could comply with everything in this plan and still meet every day with all our kids,” Paul said.
On the other hand, Grant Bowler Elementary school principal Shawna Jessen said that it was unlikely that her larger student count could allow for that kind of opening.
“Our student numbers are closer to the average numbers in town,” she said. “So we could probably not open that way.”
Even so, MVCEAB members felt that teachers and members of the Bowler community might be tapped for some innovative ideas on possibly making a return to daily classroom instruction possible, even at Bowler.
MVCEAB member Lindsey Dalley cautioned the board not to go too far in trying to develop all of the solutions for local schools.
“We are falling into the trap of trying to solve everybody’s problems with just our nine opinions,” Dalley said. “We are losing track that we have SOTs (School Organizational Teams) that are tasked with that for their schools.”
Dalley said that the task of CEAB was to support the idea that each SOT be allowed to come up with a plan unique to its school.
“Remember, the SOT doesn’t have to jump when the district says jump,” Dalley said. “It doesn’t really matter whether the district does or doesn’t do our plan. The point is that the SOT has the ability to determine a plan for its school. Once that is done, that gives parents and teachers and the CEAB something to get behind. But if there is not a plan made, we are all reduced to yelling and screaming and just saying ‘No!’. We do that a lot already.”
MVCEAB members resolved to write a letter to CCSD and state officials urging them to take a second look at SOT plans from rural schools on a case by case basis and allow for solutions in small rural schools that might not be possible in the urban schools of the district.
In addition, the board urged that local SOTs meet as soon as possible to develop alternative plans that would comply with physical distancing requirements, but allow students to return to school for a five-day instructional week if possible.
